In Teresita V. Idolor vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed that after the redemption period expires and ownership is consolidated in the buyer’s name following an extrajudicial foreclosure, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. The pendency of a case questioning the validity of the sale does not bar the issuance of the writ. This ruling ensures that purchasers can promptly take possession of foreclosed properties, preventing delays and upholding their property rights, as questions about the sale’s regularity should be resolved in a separate proceeding.

Foreclosure Fight: Can a Pending Lawsuit Block a Writ of Possession?

This case arises from a loan obtained by Teresita V. Idolor from spouses Gumersindo and Iluminada De Guzman, secured by a real estate mortgage. When Idolor defaulted on her payments, the De Guzmans initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and emerged as the highest bidder at the auction sale. Idolor then filed a complaint to annul the Certificate of Sale, leading to a legal battle over the De Guzmans’ right to possess the property.

The core legal question revolves around whether the pendency of a lawsuit challenging the validity of a foreclosure sale can prevent a court from issuing a writ of possession to the purchaser, especially after the title has been consolidated in the purchaser’s name. A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place someone in possession of property.

The Supreme Court addressed the scope and limitations of a trial court’s authority in issuing such writs, particularly in the context of extrajudicial foreclosures, and delved into when a purchaser’s right to possession becomes absolute. Understanding the nuances of this right is crucial for both mortgagors and mortgagees involved in foreclosure proceedings. Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended, outlines the procedure for obtaining a writ of possession:

SECTION 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion…and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.

The provision states the purchaser can petition the court for possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion and posting a bond. Upon expiration of the redemption period and consolidation of title, the purchaser’s right becomes absolute.

The Court emphasized that the trial court’s duty to grant a writ of possession is ministerial, meaning it must be issued as a matter of course once the proper motion and bond are presented. The Court stated: “This Court has consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court.”

Importantly, the Court clarified that any questions regarding the sale’s validity should be addressed in a separate proceeding. Even if a lawsuit is pending to annul the mortgage or foreclosure, this does not prevent the purchaser from obtaining the writ of possession. As such, questions about the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, are to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act 3135. Such question cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ, since the proceeding is ex parte. The recourse is available even before the expiration of the redemption period provided by law and the Rules of Court.

FAQs

What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order that directs the sheriff to place someone in possession of a real property. It’s often used after a foreclosure sale.
When can a purchaser obtain a writ of possession after a foreclosure sale?	A purchaser can apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion and posting a bond. After the redemption period expires and the title is consolidated, the right becomes absolute.
Is the court required to issue a writ of possession?	Yes, after the redemption period and consolidation of title, the court has a ministerial duty to issue the writ. This means the court must issue it upon proper application.
Can the issuance of a writ of possession be blocked by a pending lawsuit questioning the sale’s validity?	No, the pendency of a case questioning the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure does not prevent the issuance of a writ of possession.
What happens to questions regarding the sale’s validity if a writ of possession is issued?	Questions regarding the sale’s validity are addressed in a separate proceeding, as outlined in Section 8 of Act 3135.
What does “ministerial duty” mean in the context of issuing a writ of possession?	A “ministerial duty” means the court has no discretion. It must issue the writ upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond, or after consolidation of title.
What law governs the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosures?	Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, governs the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosures.
Who can apply for a writ of possession?	The purchaser at the foreclosure sale can apply for a writ of possession.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the ministerial nature of issuing a writ of possession in foreclosure cases once the redemption period has lapsed and title has been consolidated. This protects the rights of purchasers while ensuring that any challenges to the sale’s validity are addressed in the proper legal forum, the separate proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act 3135.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: TERESITA V. IDOLOR, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 161028, January 31, 2005